I've not done any serious editing, so there may still be typos and such things. It's 108 pages of single spaced MSWord (Ariel 12pt font). At ~57000 words, it would be about 225 pages or so of regular published print. Please give it a read and make any suggestions for a final edition.

Thanks again to all your support and encouragement as I worked on this monster. SUCH A RELIEF.

EDIT

I just finished going through the entire book. Link is updated. I think I've gotten all the errors. Now, I'm sure that in 57,000 words I've missed a couple. No one can catch all their own errors, but I'm definitely sure I got rid of the two to three that were on each page! At least . . . I hope so . . . please let me know if you find any more.

Last edited by Jac3510 on Thu Mar 19, 2015 7:01 pm, edited 5 times in total.

Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue

And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

Anyway, I'm not a proofreader but on page iii third sentence, you wrote "It is so deep and profound that it has historically governed a much, if not most, of what the Church has said , or has not said about Him. The a seems out of place.

On page iv, third paragraph, fourth sentence, you wrote, "...DS, which will be based on traditionally accept idea of what it means to be God anyway." You may want to correct that.

You write well...simplicity in style suits you!

FL EDIT: page 2, fourth paragraph, third sentence, "...so you can see that part of me is 'here' and move six foot in one direction...

EDIT #2: page 6, first paragraph, first sentence, "...some of you might have head of and a lot of you...

EDIT #3: page 6, fourth paragraph, fourth sentence, "...What is 'aseity' and why would I said that you probably hold...

EDIT #4: page 7, first paragraph of The First Premise, fourth sentence, ...then He does not existent independently of it. Also, the second paragraph of The First Premise, sixth sentence, "...no choice they make surprises God, and that God's will will still be accomplished... the double "will" annoys me. could you change it or write "...God's Will will.." ?

Hold everything lightly. If you don't, it will hurt when God pries your fingers loose as He takes it from you. -Corrie Ten Boom

+ + +

If they had a social gospel in the days of the prodigal son, somebody would have given him a bed and a sandwich and he never would have gone home.

Proinsias wrote:Nice one Jac, as my wife is midway through a masters at the moment I'm not brave enough use up printer resources on a book but I will have a read of it on a suitable screen.

Thanks.

Haha, I bet my wife could relate to that! Hopefully it will be easy enough to read on a screen, too.

RickD wrote:Great news Jac!

Now I just have to find the time to read it all in one sitting. If the rest of the book is as interesting as the part you let me read, I won't be able to stop until I'm finished.

The second part deals pretty heavily in objections, and it's much longer, so I'd be shocked if you get through it in one sitting. I'll be happy if you come back and say that after you had to put it down you were drawn back to finish (or, at least that the discussion is fair and engaging)!

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:I had to go to Staples to get another ink cartridge...

Anyway, I'm not a proofreader but on page iii third sentence, you wrote "It is so deep and profound that it has historically governed a much, if not most, of what the Church has said , or has not said about Him. The a seems out of place.

On page iv, third paragraph, fourth sentence, you wrote, "...DS, which will be based on traditionally accept idea of what it means to be God anyway." You may want to correct that.

You write well...simplicity in style suits you!

FL EDIT: page 2, fourth paragraph, third sentence, "...so you can see that part of me is 'here' and move six foot in one direction...

EDIT #2: page 6, first paragraph, first sentence, "...some of you might have head of and a lot of you...

EDIT #3: page 6, fourth paragraph, fourth sentence, "...What is 'aseity' and why would I said that you probably hold...

EDIT #4: page 7, first paragraph of The First Premise, fourth sentence, ...then He does not existent independently of it. Also, the second paragraph of The First Premise, sixth sentence, "...no choice they make surprises God, and that God's will will still be accomplished... the double "will" annoys me. could you change it or write "...God's Will will.." ?

I've tried [i]very/i] hard to keep my language as free of clutter as possible. Thanks for pointing out these typos. That's extremely helpful. I'm sure you'll find them all the way through the book, but it also looks like that you're at one a page or less, so that's not too awful (since each page tends to have about 500 words on it). I thought about doing all the proofing myself before giving it out, but I figured there was no need for that. So please, keep pointing out such errors. I've fixed the ones you cited and updated the PDF, so the link in the OP should go to a corrected version. I'll do the same as you and others point out any errors, either grammatical or stylistic.

Thanks again!

Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue

And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

I want to read it but I must let you know I go by evidence and I tend not to agree or disagree with everything in a book I read.I could accept some of it and reject other parts of it based on the word of God,evidence,logic,reason,etc.Typos won't bother me so much because I figure it will get fixed.I like to learn new things and I'm sure I will reading your book.Something tells me I will agree with most of it,if not all of it.

Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

For example, you might find someone argue that evolution is scientifically impossible. They may argue that even on the most charitable assumptions that the math just doesn’t add up, that even given the four billion years scientists say evolution had, that there simply was not enough time for chance, mutation, and natural selection to generate the level of biological complexity and diversity in the world today. Or they may argue that there are simply some aspects of life that in principle cannot be explained by evolutionary means (a popular example of this is called “irreducible complexity”). These types of arguments have been the mainstay of a movement called Intelligent Design, which hopes to show that the world as we see it demands a Creator. After all, if evolution is not how we got here, then the only other options are that we have always been here or else we were created. But if we were created, then there must be a Creator, which is to say, God exists.

While it doesn't ruin, this isn't really the best written example as it's not quite accurate. (am I nit picking?)Maybe the mainstay are creationist arguments (e.g., fine-tuning arguments like RTB advocate, or Kalam Cosmological as Craig argues, or perhaps debating evolution).BUT, IC isn't necessarily about saying something can't be explained by evolutionary means, but more rather identifying systems that don't appear reducible. Many ID proponents do accept evolution. Some aren't even Theist. How'd that be possible if the hopes of ID are to reveal a Creator?Ask Bippy, I'm sure he'll back me on this (he seems to have a good handle on ID too).

"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

For example, you might find someone argue that evolution is scientifically impossible. They may argue that even on the most charitable assumptions that the math just doesn’t add up, that even given the four billion years scientists say evolution had, that there simply was not enough time for chance, mutation, and natural selection to generate the level of biological complexity and diversity in the world today. Or they may argue that there are simply some aspects of life that in principle cannot be explained by evolutionary means (a popular example of this is called “irreducible complexity”). These types of arguments have been the mainstay of a movement called Intelligent Design, which hopes to show that the world as we see it demands a Creator. After all, if evolution is not how we got here, then the only other options are that we have always been here or else we were created. But if we were created, then there must be a Creator, which is to say, God exists.

While it doesn't ruin, this isn't really the best written example as it's not quite accurate. (am I nit picking?)Maybe the mainstay are creationist arguments (e.g., fine-tuning arguments like RTB advocate, or Kalam Cosmological as Craig argues, or perhaps debating evolution).BUT, IC isn't necessarily about saying something can't be explained by evolutionary means, but more rather identifying systems that don't appear reducible. Many ID proponents do accept evolution. Some aren't even Theist. How'd that be possible if the hopes of ID are to reveal a Creator?Ask Bippy, I'm sure he'll back me on this (he seems to have a good handle on ID too).

As I said on page iii

If it isn’t clear what the purpose and nature of this work is already, then, let me put it plainly now: I am writing this book in non-technical language for a non-technical audience in hopes of explaining and defending a very technical issue. This is not at all intended to be a scholarly account, so I ask my scholarly readers in advance for your forgiveness as there will be times that you can expect to want to pull your hair out (if you have any left after all those years of study) if and when I gloss over some issues.

I don't want to use that as an excuse for inaccuracy. Still, I don't know a passing example is the place to get into all the nuances of the ID movement. But I don't think I'm being unfair. If I may pick at your nit, I did say "these types" (plural) of arguments have been the"mainstay" of ID. Isn't that true? Irreducible Complexity is certainly not identical with specified complexity, but it seems to me that they are related and that a discussion of one will naturally lead to another, and both issues, properly discussed, will rely heavily on information theory, which seems to be the heart of the ID argument.

I grant that many ID proponents accept full blown evolution, and that ID doesn't not even demand theism. But, again, is it unfair to say that ID in general seeks to show the need for a Creator, even if some proponents want something a bit more modest? I don't think so. Unnuanced? Certainly! Unfair? I don't think that's fair.

But, again, my interest isn't in defending inaccuracy, so if you have some language you think is more appropriate, to share, and I'll be more than happy to adopt it!

Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue

And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

Anyone just wanting an overall gist DS before opening Jac's book, here is it in as succinct form as you could probably find anywhere:

The doctrine of divine simplicity holds that God is in no way composed of parts. Not only is God incorporeal and immaterial, and thus not composed of form and matter, He is also not composed of essence and existence. Rather, His essence is His existence. There is also no distinction within God between any of the divine attributes: God’s eternity is His power, which is His goodness, which is His intellect, which is His will, and so on. Indeed, God Himself just is His power, His goodness, etc., just as He just is His existence, and just is His essence. Talking or conceiving of God, God’s essence, God’s existence, God’s power, God’s goodness, and so forth are really all just different ways of talking or conceiving of one and the very same thing. Though we distinguish between them in thought, there is no distinction at all between them in reality.

This doctrine is absolutely central to the classical theistic tradition, and has been defended by thinkers as diverse as St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas, Maimonides, Avicenna, and Averroes, to name just a few. It is affirmed in such councils of the Roman Catholic Church as the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and Vatican I (1869-70) – which means that it is de fide, an absolutely binding, infallible, irreformable teaching of the Church, denial of which amounts to heresy. Divine simplicity is generally understood to follow from the Aristotelian-Thomistic doctrine of God as pure actuality.

I'm thankful to Jac for holding onto Divine Simplicity and trying to explain it over the years.If it were not for my own philosophy of religion lecturer, who said don't be in a rush to wave it off so quickly, I would have discarded it without further thought.Jac then happened to start promoting and defending it over the years at about the same time.

I've sat on the fence for almost a decade on this issue, but I'm starting to slip down on the side of Divine Simplicity. Not that I agree with everything the man says, but Jac had a hand in that.

"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

For example, you might find someone argue that evolution is scientifically impossible. They may argue that even on the most charitable assumptions that the math just doesn’t add up, that even given the four billion years scientists say evolution had, that there simply was not enough time for chance, mutation, and natural selection to generate the level of biological complexity and diversity in the world today. Or they may argue that there are simply some aspects of life that in principle cannot be explained by evolutionary means (a popular example of this is called “irreducible complexity”). These types of arguments have been the mainstay of a movement called Intelligent Design, which hopes to show that the world as we see it demands a Creator. After all, if evolution is not how we got here, then the only other options are that we have always been here or else we were created. But if we were created, then there must be a Creator, which is to say, God exists.

While it doesn't ruin, this isn't really the best written example as it's not quite accurate. (am I nit picking?)Maybe the mainstay are creationist arguments (e.g., fine-tuning arguments like RTB advocate, or Kalam Cosmological as Craig argues, or perhaps debating evolution).BUT, IC isn't necessarily about saying something can't be explained by evolutionary means, but more rather identifying systems that don't appear reducible. Many ID proponents do accept evolution. Some aren't even Theist. How'd that be possible if the hopes of ID are to reveal a Creator?Ask Bippy, I'm sure he'll back me on this (he seems to have a good handle on ID too).

As I said on page iii

If it isn’t clear what the purpose and nature of this work is already, then, let me put it plainly now: I am writing this book in non-technical language for a non-technical audience in hopes of explaining and defending a very technical issue. This is not at all intended to be a scholarly account, so I ask my scholarly readers in advance for your forgiveness as there will be times that you can expect to want to pull your hair out (if you have any left after all those years of study) if and when I gloss over some issues.

I don't want to use that as an excuse for inaccuracy. Still, I don't know a passing example is the place to get into all the nuances of the ID movement. But I don't think I'm being unfair. If I may pick at your nit, I did say "these types" (plural) of arguments have been the"mainstay" of ID. Isn't that true? Irreducible Complexity is certainly not identical with specified complexity, but it seems to me that they are related and that a discussion of one will naturally lead to another, and both issues, properly discussed, will rely heavily on information theory, which seems to be the heart of the ID argument.

I grant that many ID proponents accept full blown evolution, and that ID doesn't not even demand theism. But, again, is it unfair to say that ID in general seeks to show the need for a Creator, even if some proponents want something a bit more modest? I don't think so. Unnuanced? Certainly! Unfair? I don't think that's fair.

But, again, my interest isn't in defending inaccuracy, so if you have some language you think is more appropriate, to share, and I'll be more than happy to adopt it!

In fact, I'd say some like Thomas Nigel are quite sympathetic to ID theory in helping to identify a telos of sorts to the Natural order.Like you have a physical order, there is also an immaterial order intrinsic to the natural fabric of the world that ought to be explored. (I don't believe this)

However, it is true, that creationists everywhere including many ID advocates use it to argue for a Creator.

Here is a revised paragraph I've kept with the general flow of your thought. It's modified slightly, but is more accurate I believe.

For example, you might find someone arguing that evolution is scientifically impossible. They may argue that even on the most charitable assumptions that the probabilities just don't add up, that even given the four billion years scientists say evolution had, that there simply was not enough time for chance, mutation, and natural selection to generate the level of biological complexity and diversity in the world today. Or within the Intelligent Design movement, some attempt to identify complex biological systems on the cellular level that cannot be explained through gradual evolutionary steps (for example, Michael Behe's "irreducible complexity"). These types of arguments are often used by creationists who hope to show that the world as we see it demands a Creator. After all, if evolution is not how we got here, then the only other options are that we have always been here or else we were created. But if we were created, then there must be a Creator, which is to say, God exists.

It is your book though, and everyone has their own take on ID it seems, so if you use it or not I'm not offended much. Really I won't be. Much... The example is only a passing one that doesn't impact much of what you are saying overall.

"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)